Damage Model Bug Stomping

[Woke Up Dead]

Originally Posted by majorfailure

Did a quick check:

UB(Pe-8 ) vs. Fw190D9 -engine burns, wings break
vs. F4F and F4U -same

You sure it was the UB and not the 20mm cannon on the Pe-8? Cannons in the tail and on the back of that plane. The IL-4 has a UB on its back.

[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by Woke Up Dead

You sure it was the UB and not the 20mm cannon on the Pe-8? Cannons in the tail and on the back of that plane. The IL-4 has a UB on its back.

I had to turn the Pe-8, else you cannot fire from the engine gondolas, so yes, I'm pretty sure, and also the traces were pure white, and only white(IIRC ShvaK has slightly roseish and yellowish white traces), and RoF was what I would expect from a HMG not a cannon. And I did check what happens when firing from the top of a Pe-8, just to be sure, and the results are more devastating, engine gone in a few shots, wings usually break with first burst.

[RPS69]

Pursuivant, this is placed on the folder files/com/maddox/il2/objects.

The file is technichs .ini

; Number of shots to kill tank (panzer thickness(meters) \ energy)
[_TankShotPanzer_]
;thick\energy 0.00 7.62- 7.62 12.7 20.0 37.0 45.0 75.0 100 150
0 1000 3500 10000 27250 160000 300000 1100000 4800000 8000000
0.000 9999 60 10 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.005 9999 100 15 5 2 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.010 9999 400 35 20 8 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.015 9999 9999 1000 40 18 1.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0
0.020 9999 9999 9999 700 28 1.3 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0
0.025 9999 9999 9999 900 50 1.5 0.8 0.3 0.0 0.0
0.030 9999 9999 9999 2000 120 1.8 1.5 0.9 0.0 0.0
0.040 9999 9999 9999 9999 200 3 1.8 1.1 0.1 0.0
0.050 9999 9999 9999 9999 1000 10 5 1.5 0.6 0.0
0.070 9999 9999 9999 9999 9999 500 50 1.9 0.8 0.1
0.100 9999 9999 9999 9999 9999 2000 1000 6 1.0 0.5
0.150 9999 9999 9999 9999 9999 9999 9999 100 5 0.8
0.200 9999 9999 9999 9999 9999 9999 9999 800 200 15


That's how the game evaluate a penetration, that actually implies destruction of a ground object.
Air objects should not behave differently.
You may try to fire 9999 bullets on a wing, but I doubt it will actually break.

Also, there must be some damage boxes inside the wing that will trigger different effects. From what I tested, bigger planes got more damage boxes than small ones.

So, hitting the plane in different places may not break the wing in different patterns, because there will probably be just one box for the whole wing, unless someone coded a varied wing breaking pattern, it will probably be always the same.
Bigger planes got boxes for ailerons, so they can miss ailerons, but smaller ones appears not to have them.

If you start hitting them selectively, you will just be finding the boxes placement.

[KG26_Alpha]

Well iirc "hit boxes" are not used for aircraft DM.

Of course I will stand corrected but I'm sure a different method is used to damage the actual parts.



Damage modelling explained in the link.

http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php?topic=357.0

Damage
As explained in the general overview & parts & naming, an Il-2 aircraft is really a collection of parts flying in formation. There are three basic sets of parts, each corresponding to a "level" of damage. Levels are explained as follows:

D0 - No damage: This is the aircraft completely undamaged in normal running condition.
D1 - Light damage: Small holes from small or medium caliber machine guns and shrapnel.
D2 - Heavy damage is Light damage, plus large, threatening holes blown in the individual parts from cannon shells. Internal structure may well be visible, represented by D4 parts (see Caps & Internals page).

Note:
Perhaps some revisions may have taken place since the original post in later DT patches
I'm unsure but I would expect it to be untouched from the original concept.

[RPS69]

You know... from what I have read on that SAS post, damage boxes aren't overruled.
The collision objects aren't defined by modders.
They appear to be added after.

Nice guide BTW, thank you.

[Pursuivant]

I realized that comprehensive damage model testing reports aren't suitable for a standard forum thread. So, I'm in the process of creating a spreadsheet.

Results will be up in a few days once I've finished testing. At this point, I'm about 60% done. With 300+ aircraft in the game it's a lot of work!

I've also expanded the DM test to determine how all parts of the various planes stand up to concentrated .50 caliber fire from the front, as well as how AI handles damage.

Discoveries so far:

* The way that IL2 models wingtip damage is just wrong. Realistically, unless it's very lightly built or underpowered, almost any military plane should still be able to fly (sort of) if it's missing the outermost 10-15% of its wing.

Some very powerful and tough planes, such as the F4U, were noted for being able to fly home with up to a third of their wing missing!

But, IL2 models damage such that hits to the extreme wingtip cause a wing breakage at mid-wing - triggering fatal damage. For example, bullets which hit the last few feet of the wing will often cause the wing to break 3-5 yards inboard from the damage!

This might seem like a minor problem, but it means that most planes are far more vulnerable to wing hits than they should be, especially for ground attack missions (flak) or in hard-turning dogfights where sometimes the only shot your opponent can make on you is a wingtip shot.

* There is little consistency to wing breakage models. Aircraft like the P-51 can't have their wings broken by .50 caliber fire, but other planes of equivalent mass and construction (like the F6F or Tempest) can have their wings broken.

* The P-38, P-51 & P-47 series are invulnerable to wing breakage from .50 caliber bullets. This gives the late war USAAF fighters a huge and unfair advantage.

* The Buffalo series is invulnerable to wing damage. That explains why the B-239 is my favorite Finnish fighter!

* The A5M2 and A6M series are terribly vulnerable to wing breakage, perhaps unrealistically so. Just 3-5 .50 caliber bullets in any given wing section is enough to break a wing. In fact, the wing usually breaks before you can ignite the wing fuel tanks!

* There is little consistency in wing damage models. Planes like the Bf-109, FW-190, or Spitfire can have their wings shredded by fewer than a dozen .50 caliber bullets, while other planes of equivalent wing area can take far more damage before they show heavy damage textures.

* The Bf-109K series has slightly tougher wings than the earlier Bf-109s - despite having the worst production quality of the entire Bf-109 family. (Seriously, they were assembled by concentration camp inmates working in salt mines, made from parts shipped in from all over Occupied Europe, and their airframe lifespan was measured in terms of dozens of hours.)

* Engine damage models are a bit more consistent, but there is still some variation in the ability of the same engine to take damage based on the plane in which it is mounted. For example, the R-2800 mounted in the P-47 is much tougher than the same engine mounted in the F4U or F6F.

* The Rolls-Royce Merlin and Packard Merlin series engines are consistently very fragile, requiring slightly fewer hits to stop or to set on fire than the DB605 or Klimov M-105 series.

* Modeling of whether an engine catches fire seems to be linked to whether it stops - at least for most plane. The progression seems to be light damage > heavy damage > stop > fire. Realistically, once you get engine damage (i.e., chance of fuel or oil leak) the chance of engine fire should be separated from chance of engine stoppage. That is, you can still have an engine that runs - at least for a while - while it's on fire. For inline engines, which seem to catch fire almost as soon as they stop, there should be the chance of engine stoppage without fire.

* Fire results seem to be a bit extreme. Any damage which triggers a fire instantly causes a full-sized fire, rather than triggering a small fire which grows.

* Most crew won't bail out following a landing gear collapse on the ground.

* Damage modeling for landing gear is often quite crude - with tail wheels and landing gear struts often not being modeled. This is particularly true for the older planes in the game.

* There is no DM for flaps or air brakes - they don't take damage, can't be broken off & don't seem to contribute to wing damage.

* On many aircraft various externally-mounted vents and coolers aren't modeled. For example, the wing-mounted coolant radiators on the Bf-109 and Spitfire series aren't modeled. Kind of a big omission!

* Some planes, especially the really old ones, will have an explosion as a fatal damage effect - even if there are no bombs, ammo, or fuel in the fatally damaged areas.

* Broken parts, or sometimes the fuselage itself, will bounce around or tumble unrealistically, even on the ground. This is particularly true of some of the older planes.

[RPS69]

Pursuivant, after reading your post, I'm feeling guilty.
It is nice to do some tests, but we all know this game has it's flaws and limitations.
And unless someone on Daidalos team cares about what you are doing, it is almost a useless effort.
It will only help you to look at the game as a flawed one.
Take it easy pal.

[falconilia]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

* The P-38, P-51 & P-47 series are invulnerable to wing breakage from .50 caliber bullets. This gives the late war USAAF fighters a huge and unfair advantage.

If you fly historical air battles you dont have to worry about 0.50 caliber bullets but for lots of 20mms and some 13mm calliber (i think they are more powerfull but not tested).

So to minimize your results maybe you should test only vs Axis planes.
You will save time and strength!